"found him frequently to be a most dishonest discussion participant, a man who refuses to make himself clear then accuses others of knowing what he means and deliberately pretending not to, who refuses to commit himself on a specific explanation or definition while calling others sophists"
Are you implying that TVD is really Derrida in disguise?
Liberals can read David Brooks because he is not firebreathing like Malkin, Rush, or Hewitt and company. I can read a David Brooks column and think he is comes from an opposite prospective but he never taunts liberals and he certainly does not raise my blood pressure like Malkin and company do.
I find OTB to be fairly reliable Republican-Libertarian but you are right that as a Democratic Party supporter, I find it is a kind of conservatism that I can read and debate on an intellectual manner. OTB does not read as jeering extremism to me. It is not Michelle Malkin or Sean Hannity. It helps that Joyner and Taylor are both academics and Mataconis writes like a lawyer instead of a partisan.
At the same time, they are not David Brooks, who is the epitome of being the conservative writer that liberals can read and tolerate. They are more willing to go out and criticize liberal and Democratic policies on harsher terms than David Brooks.
I think it is possible to be a strong Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian and still have respectful arguments. TVD's problem is his special combination of victimhood with jeering partisanship as stated above.
I am no fan of TVD but would removing his FP status really help?
I remember someone making a comment in another thread that if we did not have a TVD, we would need to create him. This seems to be more of an iron-law of internet communities. Every community seems to have a troll that will not go away and eventually becomes "tolerated" by the community at large.
Sociologically this is interesting but you are also right that it can prevent a community from growing.
Personally I don't understand the psychological need to troll but it seems that this anonymity is hear to stay. The only places that manage to suppress trolling make people comment using facebook.
Also Judaism is in many ways an archly pragmatic religion. We have our esoterics and contradictions like all religions but we also like things to make a reasonable amount of sense.
There is also the fact that Judaism lacks the concept of original sin.
Sex is pleasurable and feels good. Why would God make the procreative act pleasurable? To encourage it. In Judaism, it simply does not make sense for an act that causes pleasure to be bad. Maybe there should be restraint and moderation but not full on shame and repression.
IIRC, I read that a lot early Christian theology was created as a rejection of rational and legalistic Judaism of the time.
I think the late early Christians adopted a lot of these views to make the break from Judaism more complete especially the ones who were arch-disciples of Saul the Traitor.
"Several gay activists wonder if one reason that evangelicals speak out so strongly against homosexuality (far more so than much more serious sins) is because they think that gays are having too much fun."
A Puritan is someone who lies awake at night worrying that someone, somewhere, is having a good time-HL Mencken
My issue is not really what religious conservatives believe. If they believe that sex should only exist in the realm of marriage that is fine as long as they don't tread on others.
The issue as you note is that there is a wide gap between what many religious conservatives preach and what they practice when it comes to sex.
There has always been pre-marital sex and always will be pre-marital sex. I don't think the levels of pre-marital sex have changed but what has changed is the taboo is gone and we can now engage in it without shame. Also we talk about it a bit more.
Many religious conservatives seem to want a return to taboo and stigma and as far as I can tell don't practice what they preach.
Porn Consumption is higher in red states. Teenage Pregnancy Rates are higher in Red States. Plus it seems like there are always a few news stories every year about a male, socially conservative preacher or politician getting caught with a male escort. I've read articles from sex workers in New York who claim that some of their biggest clients are Orthodox and Haredi Jewish men who use prostitution to have sex with non-Jewish women. I can't verify the last story but it would not surprise me.
Clearly all of these contortions damage the body and psyche. I don't think we need to go poly or full on return to our pagan routes. I am not poly. Polyamoury often gives me a headache and most poly couples I've met seem to end poorly. However, it should not be a radical notion that sex can be 100 percent recreational and happen before marriage. It always has and always will.
Of course what I am really curious about is that a lot of these social conservatives are also small-government types. How do they expect to create their preferred social order with small government? I knew someone who grew up in Communist Poland during the 70s and 1980s and he told me how easy it was to obtain pornography in Poland during a time of really big government.
1. Invite Karen Finley to do a performance on your front lawn, or
2. Have Richard Serra design a sculpture that bisects your front lawn and is meant to be a permanent installation that causes people to cross your lawn in weird ways to reach the front door.
I am sure plenty of neo-hippies still listen to Phish though. I saw Phish in concert once. It was 1994 and I just finished the 8th grade.
The truth is that the music scene is so diverse and niche now that there is not one-unified scene. At my very small undergrad, most people probably listened to what is generally described as "indie" rock. In 1998-2002, this included The Magnetic Fields, Superchunk, Belle and Sebastian, Sleater-Kinney, etc. Basically anyone on Merge, Matador, Sub-Pop or Kill Rock Stars. I remember Dr. Octagon was also popular.
It is probably the same at my underground now but with more indie bands added.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “So… there’s that…”
Mazel Tov!
On “On Signaling Behavior (UPDATED!)”
Mike,
I know your sources.
;)
"
Once again my jokes lead to unexpected insight and commentary.
Maybe I have a career in metaphysical comedy.
"
"found him frequently to be a most dishonest discussion participant, a man who refuses to make himself clear then accuses others of knowing what he means and deliberately pretending not to, who refuses to commit himself on a specific explanation or definition while calling others sophists"
Are you implying that TVD is really Derrida in disguise?
"
You answered your own misunderstanding.
Liberals can read David Brooks because he is not firebreathing like Malkin, Rush, or Hewitt and company. I can read a David Brooks column and think he is comes from an opposite prospective but he never taunts liberals and he certainly does not raise my blood pressure like Malkin and company do.
"
I don't know. I feel like there are a lot of people on the right-wing who specialize in this kind of combination.
"
What do you mean by "weak Republican?"
I find OTB to be fairly reliable Republican-Libertarian but you are right that as a Democratic Party supporter, I find it is a kind of conservatism that I can read and debate on an intellectual manner. OTB does not read as jeering extremism to me. It is not Michelle Malkin or Sean Hannity. It helps that Joyner and Taylor are both academics and Mataconis writes like a lawyer instead of a partisan.
At the same time, they are not David Brooks, who is the epitome of being the conservative writer that liberals can read and tolerate. They are more willing to go out and criticize liberal and Democratic policies on harsher terms than David Brooks.
I think it is possible to be a strong Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian and still have respectful arguments. TVD's problem is his special combination of victimhood with jeering partisanship as stated above.
"
How about Hannah Arendt?
On “A Letter to Fox & Friends”
James,
I am no fan of TVD but would removing his FP status really help?
I remember someone making a comment in another thread that if we did not have a TVD, we would need to create him. This seems to be more of an iron-law of internet communities. Every community seems to have a troll that will not go away and eventually becomes "tolerated" by the community at large.
Sociologically this is interesting but you are also right that it can prevent a community from growing.
Personally I don't understand the psychological need to troll but it seems that this anonymity is hear to stay. The only places that manage to suppress trolling make people comment using facebook.
On “Human Sexuality and Religious Norms”
Maybe groupon has a deal
On “A Letter to Fox & Friends”
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
"
I am waiting for the day when it is revealed that all Internet trolls really belong to a performance art collective that operates out of New York.
"
The day Chevy Chase lies to me is the day I lose my faith in humanity!
On “Human Sexuality and Religious Norms”
Agreed.
I find it curious that the Kennedy-Nixon race was the start of decay. Maybe he can even place the exact start somewhere in early November 1960.
"
I see the same article every four years.
Though my favorite was the billboard that Welcomed Republicans and proudly stated that the Mayor of Tampa and the entire city council were Democrats.
"
Noted.
As we forever bar ourselves from achieving elective office.
"
Also Judaism is in many ways an archly pragmatic religion. We have our esoterics and contradictions like all religions but we also like things to make a reasonable amount of sense.
There is also the fact that Judaism lacks the concept of original sin.
Sex is pleasurable and feels good. Why would God make the procreative act pleasurable? To encourage it. In Judaism, it simply does not make sense for an act that causes pleasure to be bad. Maybe there should be restraint and moderation but not full on shame and repression.
IIRC, I read that a lot early Christian theology was created as a rejection of rational and legalistic Judaism of the time.
"
I think the late early Christians adopted a lot of these views to make the break from Judaism more complete especially the ones who were arch-disciples of Saul the Traitor.
"Several gay activists wonder if one reason that evangelicals speak out so strongly against homosexuality (far more so than much more serious sins) is because they think that gays are having too much fun."
A Puritan is someone who lies awake at night worrying that someone, somewhere, is having a good time-HL Mencken
"
My issue is not really what religious conservatives believe. If they believe that sex should only exist in the realm of marriage that is fine as long as they don't tread on others.
The issue as you note is that there is a wide gap between what many religious conservatives preach and what they practice when it comes to sex.
There has always been pre-marital sex and always will be pre-marital sex. I don't think the levels of pre-marital sex have changed but what has changed is the taboo is gone and we can now engage in it without shame. Also we talk about it a bit more.
Many religious conservatives seem to want a return to taboo and stigma and as far as I can tell don't practice what they preach.
Porn Consumption is higher in red states. Teenage Pregnancy Rates are higher in Red States. Plus it seems like there are always a few news stories every year about a male, socially conservative preacher or politician getting caught with a male escort. I've read articles from sex workers in New York who claim that some of their biggest clients are Orthodox and Haredi Jewish men who use prostitution to have sex with non-Jewish women. I can't verify the last story but it would not surprise me.
Clearly all of these contortions damage the body and psyche. I don't think we need to go poly or full on return to our pagan routes. I am not poly. Polyamoury often gives me a headache and most poly couples I've met seem to end poorly. However, it should not be a radical notion that sex can be 100 percent recreational and happen before marriage. It always has and always will.
Of course what I am really curious about is that a lot of these social conservatives are also small-government types. How do they expect to create their preferred social order with small government? I knew someone who grew up in Communist Poland during the 70s and 1980s and he told me how easy it was to obtain pornography in Poland during a time of really big government.
On “A Letter to Fox & Friends”
Thanks for the invitation to dive into surrealism!
Giraffe Skylark Moonbeam.
"
An excellent comment, sir!
"
I thought Franco was still dead.
On “Voting Part I: I Am Jason, of the Lizard People.”
If you really want to cause discomfort, you can:
1. Invite Karen Finley to do a performance on your front lawn, or
2. Have Richard Serra design a sculpture that bisects your front lawn and is meant to be a permanent installation that causes people to cross your lawn in weird ways to reach the front door.
"
My comment on poli-sci and economists and libertarians was meant to be a joke that obviously failed and probably was not very funny.
I am sorry.
"
You have been out of college a long time.
I am sure plenty of neo-hippies still listen to Phish though. I saw Phish in concert once. It was 1994 and I just finished the 8th grade.
The truth is that the music scene is so diverse and niche now that there is not one-unified scene. At my very small undergrad, most people probably listened to what is generally described as "indie" rock. In 1998-2002, this included The Magnetic Fields, Superchunk, Belle and Sebastian, Sleater-Kinney, etc. Basically anyone on Merge, Matador, Sub-Pop or Kill Rock Stars. I remember Dr. Octagon was also popular.
It is probably the same at my underground now but with more indie bands added.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.